Q's on the Immaculate Conception

[VociMike]

Greetings,

This is my very first post at Catholic Answers (I’m not Catholic by the way).

Howdy!

It is my understanding that no one in the early church believed that Mary was sinless, or at least there is no evidence of such a belief. By early church, I am speaking of…say up to the year 400. Is this true? If it isn’t, can you guys post the patristic evidence for this belief.

(note that I am not suggesting that you are making an accusation – it is clear that you are just asking a question) There is a common type of accusation that says “No one in the early Church believed X” where X is some belief that was (and is) taught by the entire Christian world before the Reformation (both Catholics and Orthodox). The obvious question in response to this accusation, is “OK, so where is the evidence that the entire Church, both east and west, was conquered by heresy X?” I say “heresy X” because if it was not taught by the apostles and early Church, and contradicts what was taught, then it is of course a heresy. So where is the evidence of the heresy of Mary’s sinlessness slowly spreading throughout the entire Church? Surely there would be plenty of evidence. Look, for example, at all of the evidence of the Arian heresy, which conquered much but not all of the Church.

What is the scriptural evidence for this belief? I can’t think of a single verse that would even imply that Mary was sinless.

Remember, Catholics and Orthodox are not sola Scriptura. The deposit of faith left by Christ to the apostles is not reduced to the bible. So your demand for scripture before you will accept a doctrine of the Church is simply an unjustifiable demand by Catholic (and Orthodox) thinking.

Having said that, as others have pointed out there is certainly scripture that hints at Mary’s sinlessness.

 

[Reformed1]

The Immaculate Conception?

I haven’t had time to check out your patristic evidence but the reason my church doesn’t believe Mary is sinless is because we don’t see the evidence of this.

 

[VociMike]

It’s the gap between the apostles and the first writings that I know of that raise a red flag.

I guess the bottom line is, I don’t understand how you guys see tradition. How does doctrine develop and how does one distinguish between something completely fabricated and something that would be of…I don’t know what the term would be so I’ll call it Apostolic origin?

This is a very reasonable question. How does one distinguish? By listening to the Church. And how does the Church distinguish? By listening to God. But keep in mind that in every age the Church knows what she has received. So in every age she is able to recognize a “fabricated doctrine”, which she usually does through Councils.

 

[VociMike]

I haven’t had time to check out your patristic evidence but the reason my church doesn’t believe Mary is sinless is because we don’t see the evidence of this.

Notice that your church does not even claim to have a “corporate memory” which goes back to the apostles. Thus the best it can claim is that, upon examining a belief which goes back into the dim past, it does not now, after the fact, see any evidence of this belief. But the Church always remembers what she has been given. She does not need to look for evidence to decide on a belief, because she knows from her birth what beliefs she has been taught. That does not mean, of course, that she does not offer evidence for those beliefs, but only that she does not herself need evidence to know what she has always known. Just as you do not need evidence to know who you are, although you may choose to offer such evidence to others.

 

[Reformed1]

Howdy!

(note that I am not suggesting that you are making an accusation – it is clear that you are just asking a question) There is a common type of accusation that says “No one in the early Church believed X” where X is some belief that was (and is) taught by the entire Christian world before the Reformation (both Catholics and Orthodox). The obvious question in response to this accusation, is “OK, so where is the evidence that the entire Church, both east and west, was conquered by heresy X?” I say “heresy X” because if it was not taught by the apostles and early Church, and contradicts what was taught, then it is of course a heresy. So where is the evidence of the heresy of Mary’s sinlessness slowly spreading throughout the entire Church? Surely there would be plenty of evidence. Look, for example, at all of the evidence of the Arian heresy, which conquered much but not all of the Church.

Remember, Catholics and Orthodox are not sola Scriptura. The deposit of faith left by Christ to the apostles is not reduced to the bible. So your demand for scripture before you will accept a doctrine of the Church is simply an unjustifiable demand by Catholic (and Orthodox) thinking.

Having said that, as others have pointed out there is certainly scripture that hints at Mary’s sinlessness.

I don’t know if it is heresy or not to believe Mary wass sinless but right now I don’t believe it because of a lack of evidence. As far as there being evidence of the belief spreading there appears to be a beginning point right around 400 ad. I haven’t had time to go back and check the references earlier in this thread but from what little research I have done the earliest writing to support the Immaculate Conception appears to be around 400 ad so that is the date I will stick with until I see something to the contrary.

Now, I’m not demanding anything. I simply asked for the scriptural evidence to support the Immaculate Conception because the usual scriptures that are given to support this belief don’t even seem to imply Mary’s sinlessness. Full of grace doesn’t seem to necessarily imply Mary was sinless.

I know you guys probably get attacked quite often but that is not my purpose here. I know full well we disagree now and will probably disagree at the end of the day on this but that doesn’t mean that we can’t have a meaningful and prodcutive discussion.

My only purpose here is to learn more about the Catholic Church and stir the pot a little (in hopefully a good way) to get some good discussions going.

I would like to think that I am fairly knowlegeable about the Church and don’t subscribe to the Jack Chick and Lorraine Boettener garbage.

 

[Reformed1]

Notice that your church does not even claim to have a “corporate memory” which goes back to the apostles. Thus the best it can claim is that, upon examining a belief which goes back into the dim past, it does not now, after the fact, see any evidence of this belief. But the Church always remembers what she has been given. She does not need to look for evidence to decide on a belief, because she knows from her birth what beliefs she has been taught. That does not mean, of course, that she does not offer evidence for those beliefs, but only that she does not herself need evidence to know what she has always known. Just as you do not need evidence to know who you are, although you may choose to offer such evidence to others.

I don’t know if we claim to have “corporate memory” or not. Actually I have never thought about it.

I don’t understand exactly how doctrine develops so I’m not sure how to respond to your post.

So when in doubt…as them another question.

When you say that the Church passon “what she has always known”. Does that mean you think Peter and Paul, Ignatius, etc believed everything the Church now teaches?

 

[DCD]

Reformed,

Hello,

Keep in mind and this is crucial if you want to understand Catholicism or any of her doctrines. We do not use or look to Sacred Scripture as a way to proof text are way to The Truth. Sacred Scripture for a Catholic (for one who knows the faith) bears witness to The Truth.

So if you are looking for a verse to prove The Immaculate Conception you have come to the wrong fourm. Catholic’s have not only The Word of God in scripture but we are also blessed to have the living voice of the Magisterium to pass on The Truth.

How do you understand the Immaculate Conception to be contradictory to God’s Word?

Peace,
David

 

[Reformed1]

Reformed,

Hello,

Keep in mind and this is crucial if you want to understand Catholicism or any of her doctrines. We do not use or look to Sacred Scripture as a way to proof text are way to The Truth. Sacred Scripture for a Catholic (for one who knows the faith) bears witness to The Truth.

So if you are looking for a verse to prove The Immaculate Conception you have come to the wrong fourm. Catholic’s have not only The Word of God in scripture but we are also blessed to have the living voice of the Magisterium to pass on The Truth.

How do you understand the Immaculate Conception to be contradictory to God’s Word?

Peace,
David

If I understand the Catholic position correctly…Mary was preserved from original sin by the grace of God and kept from actual sin throughout her life, again by the grace of God.

Mary, even though sinless, still needed a saviour to keep her from falling into sin.

Does this seem right…or at least close to right?

If I tell you that all have sinned you are likely to point out that “all” doesn’t always mean “all” without exception and even my theological background points out a few cases where this is the case.

So…I’m not going to go as far to say that it contradicts scripture, just that there doesn’t appear to be any evidence of this belief in scripture and that the belief appears to be unheard of for several centuries.

 

[VociMike]

I don’t know if we claim to have “corporate memory” or not. Actually I have never thought about it.

Well, given the Protestant approach to doctrine (read the scriptures, and the Holy Spirit will reveal the truth contained in them) I don’t see any component of corporate memory involved. But that’s just my take on it.

I don’t understand exactly how doctrine develops so I’m not sure how to respond to your post.

So when in doubt…as them another question.

When you say that the Church passon “what she has always known”. Does that mean you think Peter and Paul, Ignatius, etc believed everything the Church now teaches?

No, I don’t think it worked that way. This is my (more or less informed) opinion only. For example, did Peter and Paul understand the Trinity as well as we do? Or the hypostatic union? If they did, and the Church taught it with clarity from the beginning, then why did so many heresies on the subjects arise, which the Church had to counter through Councils? And yet we know that the resulting “clarifications” of the Church on the Trinity and the hypostatic union are true. So we have clear cases, accepted by Protestants, where the Church developed and clarified beliefs it had received during the time of the general revelation.

In scripture we see over and over that the apostles would be taught something but wouldn’t understand it at the time. I think this is the permanent model of the Church. The apostles received the entire deposit of faith, but they didn’t understand the entire deposit of faith. That understanding has come slowly down the centuries, as the Holy Spirit “will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” So the Holy Spirit is constantly reminding the Church of what she has received, and guiding her into deeper understanding of what she has received.

I find an interesting parallel between this view of the Church, and the view of our scientific understanding of the world. It seems to me that regarding the latter, God has given us a nearly infinite mystery to unravel, and each new unravelling points once again back to Him. But that analogy only goes so far, because we do believe that God’s public revelation ended with the apostles. BTW, why does your church believe this (AFAIK, all Protestants do believe it)? Can they justify that belief?

Oh, and regarding my use of “demand” in that other post, that was a poor choice of words. As you say, you are just asking, not demanding. And let me say that you have come across as nothing but polite and sincere in your questions. For that, thank you!

 

[Veritas41]

You’re asking some good questions, Reformed. Are you Presbyterian? The reason I ask is because I wanted to bring up infant baptism as an example. You mentioned you couldn’t find a Bible verse that taught this. I bring up infant baptism because I used to be Reformed Baptist and couldn’t “see” infant baptism taught in Scripture --there was no explicit command in the Bible. But I read about infant baptism in light of covenant theology, and then I could “see” infant baptism. I had to look at the"big picture" of God’s dealings with Israel --I could see definitely the biblical evidence, which was more implicit than explicit. It’s the same with the Immaculate Conception. I’ll try to outline it for you as briefly and clearly as I can:

Genesis 3:15 – the prophecy of the seed of the woman who would crush the head of the serpent, and that God would put enmity between the woman and the serpent. That enmity, opposition, is total and complete. --Jesus repeatedly refers to Mary as “Woman” throughout His public ministry. That always struck me as an odd way for Him to refer to His mother, but in light of this prophecy, it makes perfect sense. Jesus is telling us His mother Mary fulfills this prophecy. Mary’s opposition to Satan could not be total and complete if she were born with a corrupted human nature.

If you look at the Fall, there is a man (Adam), a woman (Eve) and an angel (a fallen one, Satan). All were disobedient to God. In contrast to this, at the Redemption (in Catholic theology began at the Incarnation and ended on the Cross) there is a man (Jesus), a woman (Mary, the New Eve – if there’s a second Adam, Christ, there has to be a second Eve to complete the picture), and an angel (the archangel Gabriel). Three sinners in the beginning; three sinless ones at the redemption.

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Compare 2 Samuel 6:1-7 and Luke 1:39-45 and note the striking parallels: 1) David “arose and went” – Mary “arose and went”
2) David went to the hill country of Judah --Mary went to the hill country of Judah 3)David proclaims his unworthiness before the ark – Elizabeth proclaims her unworthiness before Mary 4) David dances before the ark – John the Baptist leaps in his mother’s before Mary 5) the Ark remained in the hill country for 3 months – Mary remained in the hill country with Elizabeth for 3 months.

Compare the OT Ark and the NT Ark, Mary:

Ark contained: Rod of Aaron (the ancestral priesthood)
Miraculous manna (bread from heaven)
Word of God written in stone

Mary contained: Jesus, the eternal High Priest
Jesus, the Bread of Life,
Jesus, Word of God made flesh

How could Mary be the Ark that contained the Most High God if she were a vessel marred by sin?

At the Annunciation, the archangel Gabriel addresses Mary not by her name, but by the title, “full of grace.” Now, I’m not knowledgeable about Greek, so what I know is from others who know Greek, and the fact she’s addressed in this way and the construct of the word indicates a permanent quality about Mary.

I think others have sent you links with the patristic writings on Mary. They may not use the word “immaculate conception,” but belief in her sinlessness goes back to earliest times. The Trinity is a similar situation. If you’ve ever talked with Oneness Pentecostals or Jehovah’s Witnesses, who deny the Trinity, an argument they present is that the doctrine of the Trinity doesn’t appear until after the fourth century. It’s true in the earliest patristic writings that term doesn’t appear, but the teaching is there. An analogy for the development of doctrine would be like comparing an acorn to a full grown oak. An acorn possesses all the genetic information to create an oak, but it’s not fully grown and developed. It needs time and nutrition to grow and development into a tree. The deposit of faith given to the apostles (Tradition) and handed down through the Magisterium (teaching authority of the church) started out as an “acorn”, with all the doctrines present but not fully developed. Remember Jesus said to His apostles before His death, that He had much more to teach them, more than they could bear, and He would send the Holy Spirit to “lead” them into “all truth?” Over centuries of reflection and understanding, we have grown in our understanding of the deposit of faith, not understanding them differently or changing them, but being able to better define and explain what Jesus taught the apostles. The Trinity is also an example of development of doctrine. In the Old Testament we have hints of the Trinity, but the Oneness of God is most emphasized. When the Trinity is taught in the New, it’s not a contradiction of what is taught in the Old, but a more complete revelation of the nature of God in harmony with what is taught in the Old.

 

[Reformed1]

You’re asking some good questions, Reformed. Are you Presbyterian? The reason I ask is because I wanted to bring up infant baptism as an example. You mentioned you couldn’t find a Bible verse that taught this. I bring up infant baptism because I used to be Reformed Baptist and couldn’t “see” infant baptism taught in Scripture --there was no explicit command in the Bible. But I read about infant baptism in light of covenant theology, and then I could “see” infant baptism. I had to look at the"big picture" of God’s dealings with Israel --I could see definitely the biblical evidence, which was more implicit than explicit. It’s the same with the Immaculate Conception. I’ll try to outline it for you as briefly and clearly as I can:

Genesis 3:15 – the prophecy of the seed of the woman who would crush the head of the serpent, and that God would put enmity between the woman and the serpent. That enmity, opposition, is total and complete. --Jesus repeatedly refers to Mary as “Woman” throughout His public ministry. That always struck me as an odd way for Him to refer to His mother, but in light of this prophecy, it makes perfect sense. Jesus is telling us His mother Mary fulfills this prophecy. Mary’s opposition to Satan could not be total and complete if she were born with a corrupted human nature.

If you look at the Fall, there is a man (Adam), a woman (Eve) and an angel (a fallen one, Satan). All were disobedient to God. In contrast to this, at the Redemption (in Catholic theology began at the Incarnation and ended on the Cross) there is a man (Jesus), a woman (Mary, the New Eve – if there’s a second Adam, Christ, there has to be a second Eve to complete the picture), and an angel (the archangel Gabriel). Three sinners in the beginning; three sinless ones at the redemption.

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Compare 2 Samuel 6:1-7 and Luke 1:39-45 and note the striking parallels: 1) David “arose and went” – Mary “arose and went”
2) David went to the hill country of Judah --Mary went to the hill country of Judah 3)David proclaims his unworthiness before the ark – Elizabeth proclaims her unworthiness before Mary 4) David dances before the ark – John the Baptist leaps in his mother’s before Mary 5) the Ark remained in the hill country for 3 months – Mary remained in the hill country with Elizabeth for 3 months.

Compare the OT Ark and the NT Ark, Mary:

Ark contained: Rod of Aaron (the ancestral priesthood)
Miraculous manna (bread from heaven)
Word of God written in stone

Mary contained: Jesus, the eternal High Priest
Jesus, the Bread of Life,
Jesus, Word of God made flesh

How could Mary be the Ark that contained the Most High God if she were a vessel marred by sin?

At the Annunciation, the archangel Gabriel addresses Mary not by her name, but by the title, “full of grace.” Now, I’m not knowledgeable about Greek, so what I know is from others who know Greek, and the fact she’s addressed in this way and the construct of the word indicates a permanent quality about Mary.

I think others have sent you links with the patristic writings on Mary. They may not use the word “immaculate conception,” but belief in her sinlessness goes back to earliest times. The Trinity is a similar situation. If you’ve ever talked with Oneness Pentecostals or Jehovah’s Witnesses, who deny the Trinity, an argument they present is that the doctrine of the Trinity doesn’t appear until after the fourth century. It’s true in the earliest patristic writings that term doesn’t appear, but the teaching is there. An analogy for the development of doctrine would be like comparing an acorn to a full grown oak. An acorn possesses all the genetic information to create an oak, but it’s not fully grown and developed. It needs time and nutrition to grow and development into a tree. The deposit of faith given to the apostles (Tradition) and handed down through the Magisterium (teaching authority of the church) started out as an “acorn”, with all the doctrines present but not fully developed. Remember Jesus said to His apostles before His death, that He had much more to teach them, more than they could bear, and He would send the Holy Spirit to “lead” them into “all truth?” Over centuries of reflection and understanding, we have grown in our understanding of the deposit of faith, not understanding them differently or changing them, but being able to better define and explain what Jesus taught the apostles. The Trinity is also an example of development of doctrine. In the Old Testament we have hints of the Trinity, but the Oneness of God is most emphasized. When the Trinity is taught in the New, it’s not a contradiction of what is taught in the Old, but a more complete revelation of the nature of God in harmony with what is taught in the Old.

Wow…long post.

I will have to read more of it but for now, yes I am Presbyterian.

 

[decn2b]

Genesis 3:15 – the prophecy of the seed of the woman who would crush the head of the serpent, and that God would put enmity between the woman and the serpent. That enmity, opposition, is total and complete. --Jesus repeatedly refers to Mary as “Woman” throughout His public ministry. That always struck me as an odd way for Him to refer to His mother, but in light of this prophecy, it makes perfect sense. Jesus is telling us His mother Mary fulfills this prophecy. Mary’s opposition to Satan could not be total and complete if she were born with a corrupted human nature.

If you look at the Fall, there is a man (Adam), a woman (Eve) and an angel (a fallen one, Satan). All were disobedient to God. In contrast to this, at the Redemption (in Catholic theology began at the Incarnation and ended on the Cross) there is a man (Jesus), a woman (Mary, the New Eve – if there’s a second Adam, Christ, there has to be a second Eve to complete the picture), and an angel (the archangel Gabriel). Three sinners in the beginning; three sinless ones at the redemption.

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Compare 2 Samuel 6:1-7 and Luke 1:39-45 and note the striking parallels: 1) David “arose and went” – Mary “arose and went”
2) David went to the hill country of Judah --Mary went to the hill country of Judah 3)David proclaims his unworthiness before the ark – Elizabeth proclaims her unworthiness before Mary 4) David dances before the ark – John the Baptist leaps in his mother’s before Mary 5) the Ark remained in the hill country for 3 months – Mary remained in the hill country with Elizabeth for 3 months.

Compare the OT Ark and the NT Ark, Mary:

Ark contained: Rod of Aaron (the ancestral priesthood)
Miraculous manna (bread from heaven)
Word of God written in stone

Mary contained: Jesus, the eternal High Priest
Jesus, the Bread of Life,
Jesus, Word of God made flesh

How could Mary be the Ark that contained the Most High God if she were a vessel marred by sin?

At the Annunciation, the archangel Gabriel addresses Mary not by her name, but by the title, “full of grace.” Now, I’m not knowledgeable about Greek, so what I know is from others who know Greek, and the fact she’s addressed in this way and the construct of the word indicates a permanent quality about Mary.

I think others have sent you links with the patristic writings on Mary. They may not use the word “immaculate conception,” but belief in her sinlessness goes back to earliest times. The Trinity is a similar situation. If you’ve ever talked with Oneness Pentecostals or Jehovah’s Witnesses, who deny the Trinity, an argument they present is that the doctrine of the Trinity doesn’t appear until after the fourth century. It’s true in the earliest patristic writings that term doesn’t appear, but the teaching is there. An analogy for the development of doctrine would be like comparing an acorn to a full grown oak. An acorn possesses all the genetic information to create an oak, but it’s not fully grown and developed. It needs time and nutrition to grow and development into a tree. The deposit of faith given to the apostles (Tradition) and handed down through the Magisterium (teaching authority of the church) started out as an “acorn”, with all the doctrines present but not fully developed. Remember Jesus said to His apostles before His death, that He had much more to teach them, more than they could bear, and He would send the Holy Spirit to “lead” them into “all truth?” Over centuries of reflection and understanding, we have grown in our understanding of the deposit of faith, not understanding them differently or changing them, but being able to better define and explain what Jesus taught the apostles. The Trinity is also an example of development of doctrine. In the Old Testament we have hints of the Trinity, but the Oneness of God is most emphasized. When the Trinity is taught in the New, it’s not a contradiction of what is taught in the Old, but a more complete revelation of the nature of God in harmony with what is taught in the Old.

Someones been reading Scott Hahn!!!

As a cradle I just took it for what the church said…then I read Hahn which you basically summarize above and I was abosolutely FLOORED by the scriputural inferences used for scriptural witness to the doctrine. Especially “FULL OF GRACE” which means she was FULL of Grace before Christ opened up the floodgates of grace. IN fact was grace even avail for mankind after the fall and before the Crucifixion? If it was or wasn’t how in the world was mary FULL OF GRACE even before she concieved the savior.

 

[Atreyu]

I guess the bottom line is, I don’t understand how you guys see tradition. How does doctrine develop and how does one distinguish between something completely fabricated and something that would be of…I don’t know what the term would be so I’ll call it Apostolic origin?

Try this:
Development of Christian Doctrine, by John Henry Newman. It was Newman’s studies of development of doctrine that led him from Anglo-Catholic to Catholic (I think).

 

[DCD]

Reformed,

Here are some verse’s you could ponder and pray about. Take a look at Lk.1:6-12. We have Zechariah a priest and we know that he was ‘righetous and walking in all the commandments of the Lord blameless.’ It was a belief at that time that your plight for being barren or childless was a just punishment for some hidden sin. Now we know from St. Luke’s account this is not the case. Now he goes into the “temple of the Lord.” This is the “holy place” only a priest could enter. So this was a privilege and a service that he was permitted to perform only once in his life. Now we have an “angel of the Lord standing at the right side of the altar of incense.” Verse 12 tells us" Zechariah was troubled when he saw and fear fell upon him." It is strange that someone who is “blameless” before God would act this way. Perhaps he ceased praying for his petition to God for a son after he realized that within the natural order it was no longer possible.

Now lets take a look at Lk.1:26-30. We have the same angel Gabriel being sent to a virgin and her name was Mary. Where did this take place? Nazareth this is strange for a village of such ill-repute. No “holy place” to speak of or is it? The God who cannot be contained came to dwell in his entirety in Mary. There is no need of a special place for Gabriel to appear to Mary she is The Holy place where The Holy of Holies resides. Verse 28 Mary is greeted by Gabriel “Hail full of Grace the Lord is with you!” Luke shows us the difference in greetings and the different reactions between Zechariah and Mary. High priest vs humble handmaid. Not too often we see a man greeting a woman in the ancient East let alone an angel The priest who is blameless in all the commandments of the Lord seems to get a snub compared to the lowly handmaid of the Lord in Nazareth even Nathanael wondered if anything good could come from Nazareth. And we can also recall John being told to get up when the highest order other than God an angel appears to him. So Luke is showing us the interaction of angels with mankind and it is profound when we contrast that with Mary’s annunciation. Another thing to ponder is did Gabriel show himself to Mary Luke leaves that out but he did not leave it out a few verses earlier when he appeared to Zechariah. We know that Gabriel’s body was clear as topaz, his face shone like lightning, his eyes were like burning lamps; his arms and legs had the gleam of bronze Dan10. Mary would not have to witness these outward manifestations of Gabriel’s spirutal splendor her’s was much greater. We have a blameless priest walking in all the commandments of God who is afraid of Gabriel and Mary who is troubled (excited) at the angel’s greeting. Hail meaning joy would not have caused the trouble. Now "full of grace’ had never been addressed to anyone hence the excitement at the saying. “The Lord is with you!” Wow when had this been said before see Judges iv and Judith xiii.

We can see the beauty of why Luke records these episodes back to back for his audience. And they would have been very aware of all the great details he leaves. For us so far removed from the culture of that time it may not be so easy unless you have a church that teaches the Word. This is just one way The Church unpacks these verses to come to an understanding of the Immaculate Conception. Hope this helps.

Peace,
David

 

[kleary]

Hi Reformed1,

The Immaculate Conception of Mary is totally dependant on the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.

If you read the decree, when the dogma became officially binding on all Catholics to believe, you should have no problem with it.

I mean the Triune God reaches across time, which He can most definitely do, and applies the Sacrifice of Calvary to Mary’s soul at the moment of her conception.

In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the “Blessed Virgin Mary” in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and “grace” granted by “God”, in view of the “merits” of “Jesus Christ”, the Saviour of the “human race”, was preserved exempt from all stain of “original sin”.

"The Blessed Virgin Mary . . ." The subject of this immunity from “original sin” is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body.
". . .in the first instance of her conception . . ." The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the “mother”, and the “father” had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of “original sin” at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.
". . .was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. . ." The formal active essence of “original sin” was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to “original sin”, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining in her soul to “original sin”, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam – from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death. “. . .by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race.” The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of “Christ”, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of “Christ”, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of “Christ’s” redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor…
.

Ken

 

[kleary]

Buffalo,

I’m not feeling it or seeing it here. Is your proof verse 28?

I’ll have to read the links you provided but I don’t see how you would get sinless out of the verses you chose to post.

Luke 1:28 uses the Greek word “Kecharitomene” which designates a fullness completelness of grace- and thus an absence of the original sin. The word used there is way too stong to mean anything else.

Ken

 

[Veritas41]

Someones been reading Scott Hahn!!!

Yes, I have been He was the final “push” that got me into the Catholic Church

 

[st_lucy]

Hello Reformed,

Here is some Early Father’s thoughts on the Immaculate Conception.

The Early Church Fathers on
The Immaculate Conception

The Early Church Fathers believed that Mary was full of grace and thus sinless.

Justin Martyr

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, “Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Origen

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Hippolytus

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Ephraim the Syrian

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).

Ambrose of Milan

Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).

Gregory Nazianzen

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

Augustine

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Theodotus of Ancrya

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).

Proclus of Constantinople

As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1[ante A.D. 446]).

Jacob of Sarug

[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary[ante A.D. 521].

Romanos the Melodist

Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified (On the Birth of Mary 1 [d. ca A.D. 560]).

 

[Veritas41]

Your point with the belief just popping up at the year 400 is well taken. I hadn’t thought about the fact that something like this would have been in existence for some amount of time before actually becoming a widespread belief. However, we still (as far as I know) have quite a gap between the Apostles and the first evidence of anyone believing in the Immaculate Conception. I would think that this would have been a hotly debated topic and yet, curiously, we see no evidence of this for several centuries.

The Ascension of Isaiah
“[T]he report concerning the child was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, ‘The Virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months.’ And many said, ‘She has not given birth; the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of pain’” (Ascension of Isaiah 11 [A.D. 70]).

The Odes of Solomon

"So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with will . . . " (*Odes of Solomon *19 [A.D. 80]).

This is a case of indirect reference to her immaculate conception: pain in childbirth is a consequence of original sin, yet these early writings say Mary didn’t suffer pain in childbirth, indicating she didn’t suffer the effects of original sin. And both these are from the first century, when the Apostle John was still alive, the apostle to whom Jesus entrusted His mother to.

 

[Veritas41]

If I understand the Catholic position correctly…Mary was preserved from original sin by the grace of God and kept from actual sin throughout her life, again by the grace of God.

Mary, even though sinless, still needed a saviour to keep her from falling into sin.

Does this seem right…or at least close to right?

If I tell you that all have sinned you are likely to point out that “all” doesn’t always mean “all” without exception and even my theological background points out a few cases where this is the case.

So…I’m not going to go as far to say that it contradicts scripture, just that there doesn’t appear to be any evidence of this belief in scripture and that the belief appears to be unheard of for several centuries.

Mary needed a Savior to be immaculately conceived --she received the grace of salvation, being preserved from sin rather than cleansed from sin as the rest of us are – due to the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. And, of course, it was by God’s grace she remained sinless (and the Eastern Orthodox, while not having the teaching of the Immaculate Conception because of their views of original sin, do believe in Mary’s sinlessness). John the Baptist, who Jesus said was the greatest of the prophets who would announce the Messiah, was sanctified early on in his mother’s womb. It’s not a stretch, then, that the Mother of the Savior might be conceived in grace and therefore be perfectly sanctified in order to fulfill her God-ordained role in salvation. The Immaculate conception is pure predestination.